Turnbull appoints Simon Hackett, others to NBN board

news Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull today announced that he had appointed three senior executives, including Simon Hackett, Internode founder and doyen of Australia’s broadband industry, to be non-executive directors sitting on the board of the National Broadband Network Company.

In a statement issued this morning, Turnbull said as part of the Government’s continuing National Broadband Network reforms, three directors with extensive relevant industry experience had been appointed to the NBN Co Board.

“The three new non-executive directors are Patrick Flannigan, Simon Hackett, and Justin Milne,” wrote Turnbull. “They further enhance the board’s capabilities and expertise to provide appropriate oversight and guidance to this vitally important national project.”

NBN Co executive chairman Ziggy Switkowski said: “This is a period of transition for the company and it will be a great asset to have a new board that brings decades of combined experience in the industry.”

The trio will join current NBN Co board members Ziggy Switkowski, Alison Lansley and Kerry Schott. Switkowski was appointed by Turnbull in early October as NBN Co’s new executive chairman, temporarily replacing the company’s retiring chief executive Mike Quigley until a replacement can be found. Lansley and Schott are holdovers from the previous NBN Co board under the previous Labor Federal Government. Most of that board was asked to resign by Turnbull shortly after he took office.

Hackett graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Adelaide in 1986. He then worked at the university and became a part of the team that created the Australian Academic and Research network (AARNet), the first emergence of the Internet in Australia.

In 1991 he founded Internode, an Internet Service Provider, and then in 1997 he founded its sister company Agile, a licensed telecommunications carrier. Over the next 20 years the company group deployed its own network to deliver ADSL2+, optical fibre, microwave, and fixed wireless Internet services around Australia to residential and business customers. Internode was one of the first companies to connect customers to the NBN in 2010.

The group was sold to iiNet Limited in early 2012, when it had around 180,000 broadband customers nationally. Simon joined the board of iiNet in August 2012. Hackett has been an opinion leader in the national broadband debate for many years. He is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and a fellow of the Australian Computer Society. Hackett will resign his position on the board of iiNet at the end of this month to focus on his role with NBN Co, according to Turnbull.

Aside from his qualifications for a role at NBN Co, Hackett has also been one of the most vocal analysts of the NBN over the past several years since the project was founded in April 2009, and has proved uncannily accurate at predicting the future dynamics of the project.

In all of these cases, Hackett argued against conventional wisdom espoused by the previous Labor Government, the competition regulator (the ACCC) or NBN Co itself — and turned out to be accurate in his predictions about the future of the NBN project.

And even though Hackett has formally relinquished ownership of the company he founded and led to national prevalence, Internode, the executive still maintains one of the most prescient voices in the industry. In July this year, Hackett outlined a series of measures by which NBN Co could cut its costs and bring its pricy FTTP rollout more in line with the Coalition’s FTTN-based alternative. NBN Co will be examining precisely this situation in its current strategic review of its operations, to be presented to Turnbull for examination.

Some issues remain around Hackett’s involvement with the NBN. The executive currently holds a substantial tranche of iiNet shares, stemming from iiNet’s acquisition of Internode. This could be seen as a conflict of interest for his position at NBN Co, given that iiNet is a substantial NBN Co customer. However, it could also be argued that Hackett’s position gives him a solid position to represent the interests of retail ISPs on NBN Co’s board.

Other directors
The other two directors appointed by Turnbull are similarly high-profile.

Milne first rose to prominence in Australia’s technology sector as he joined Microsoft in 1995 as managing director of MSN, the company’s first entry into the internet portal business, which he helped establish and develop in the Australian market. In 1999, Justin joined OzEmail as Head of Data Casting and was later appointed chief executive officer, in a role which saw him work directly with Turnbull, who was an early investor in OzEmail and helped in its public listing.

In 2002, Milne joined Telstra as managing director of Telstra’s BigPond ISP division and was later promoted to the role of group managing director, responsible for Bigpond and Telstra Media. Milne ran Telstra’s Bigpond business as it was transitioning from dial-up to delivering broadband services, increasing its customer base from 200,000 users to 2.5 million. During his time at Bigpond he also delivered and launched the first wireless broadband products in Australia and Milne was also involved in purchasing and operating new media businesses in China for Telstra. He resigned from Telstra in 2010 and is currently a non-executive director of Tabcorp, Members Equity Bank, NetComm Wireless, Basketball Australia and the Leichhardt Rowing Club.

The third new director, Patrick Flannigan, will re-join NBN Co after a previous stint at the company. A construction engineer by trade, Flannigan joined Skilled Engineering in July 1990 and was promoted to executive general manager of the company in 1998, which included responsibilities for the Telstra and Optus HFC rollouts. He established his own business, Integrated Maintenance Services in 2000. Flannigan co-founded ASX-listed infrastructure provider Service Stream in 2003, where he was the chief executive from 2003 to 2009.

He joined NBN Co as the company’s head of construction in 2009, where he managed the company’s network construction and relationships with major contractors. However, the executive quit NBN Co in April 2011 under a cloud; just days after negotiations broke down between the fledgling fibre monopoly and some 14 construction firms about the construction of the nation-wide network.

Since leaving NBN Co, Patrick founded Utility Services Group, and is currently chief executive officer and managing director of the company, which employs approximately 2,000 people nationally, servicing linear infrastructure in the electricity, gas, water and telecommunications sectors. Patrick is a director of the Australian Grand Prix Corporation and has a business degree from Victoria University, is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors and a fellow of the Australian Institute of Management.

“As with journalists, the role of board directors is not to say comforting things to people in powerful positions. The role of directors is to bring all their skills to the board table and speak all the truth that they know, no matter how uncomfortable, for the benefit of the organisation they represent and its stakeholders. They are wise, disciplined, outspoken counsellors that aim to stop good organisations going off the rails.

It’d be hard to find a better description than this for Simon Hackett, who’s been a wise counsellor to Australia’s telco industry for several decades. And if the Coalition is going to stack NBN Co’s board with past Telstra executives, it’d be nice to see a little energy and variety added to the mix — for example, someone who has spent the past couple of decades wrestling Telstra to get better broadband outcomes for all Australians.

Give Simon Hackett a call, Minister Turnbull. I positively guarantee you won’t be disappointed. The only thing the Coalition might need to be concerned about is that Hackett might eventually end up running the whole show. But then, that outcome has worked out fantastically for Australia in the past.”

I can live with the other appointees. There are doubts about Milne, and Flannigan has already had one stint at NBN Co. Both also have substantial conflicts of interest in sitting on NBN Co’s board (as does Hackett himself, with his iiNet shares) However, the appointment of Hackett to NBN Co’s board is a legendary move which will instantly buy Malcolm Turnbull back a swathe of credibility with both consumers and Australia’s telecommunications industry. I suspect the Minister is very aware of that fact. You only need to look at the reaction to Hackett’s appointment on social media today to see how popular Hackett’s appointment to NBN Co’s board will be.

“Not for nothing (and not just for their similar choice of facial hair and elegant glasses either) has your writer previously compared Hackett to Gordon Freeman, the stubborn protagonist of Valve’s seminal video game Half-Life 2. Hackett has Freeman’s drive, energy, and very likely his engineering skills with a crowbar. For the NBN, Hackett has long been the right man in the wrong place. His appointment this morning perhaps places him where he can be most useful to the project.”

186 COMMENTS

Speaking as an Internode customer of a decade at least, I’ve followed Hackett during this time and find him a strong voice of reason, intellect and sanity. I’m completely stoked to hear him being appointed as NBN board member. Congratulations, Simon – and Australia!

Given Simon is a Non Exec Director and large shareholder of one of the most successful NBN RSPs it sure is an interesting situation. He will be a great voice to have on the board but let’s not pretend he is a unbiased Internet evangelist who just want the bits to be free man.

I’d have to disagree with you there. Of all people I think Simon can seperate what’s good for the Australian public from what is good for his ISP. It has always amazed me how he would put the customer before Internode profitability. I really respect him for some of the decisions he has made in the past. I couldn’t say the same for some other ISP owners, but Simon has always had great integrity.

I’m sorry — which other Board Member is the single largest shareholder in a leading telco? That’s like saying I’m “conflicted” if I own ten shares in Network Ten and putting me on par with Gina, Lachlan and Jamie. Ludicrous.

Sorry or not, it appears that even Malcolm isn’t concerned otherwise Simon wouldn’t have been appointed, meaning it’s, well, just you who is making an issue and an issue regarding only one member and not the others (gee two sets of rules again, who’d have ever thunk it eh?)…

So does this mean your complete Telstra allegiance is even more important to you than your Coalition allegiance?

Trolls going to troll.
We are celebrating that there is someone with half a brain on the board of members now, someone who can speak their mind and someone from my knowledge isn’t interested in Telstra shares.

So going into a election with a well known published NBN policy, you then win that election, then after the election you decide to go with a virtual mirror of the previous NBN policy, has nothing to do with integrity?

Nothing to do with integrity, and all to do with common sense, yes. You’re the kind of person with strong brand loyalty, I can tell. It doesn’t matter if another brand has the better product, you’ll stick with the brand you know, and try to convince yourself that it’s better.

I can’t speak for Peter but I found it ‘odd’ too, considering that the rest of the appointments to date generally fall under the umbrella of cronies and yes-men.

I don’t hold much hope, and I hold more than a little cynicism. I’m certainly not an instant convert.

After all, Simon might have the right views, but he has just the one voice on the Board. I also have a suspicion that this is a clever political move by Turnbull to shoot down the accusations of cronyism, and it has appeared to work. “Here is a contrary view. You see, we’re technologically agnostic.”

But in terms of hope, it could be a way out for Malcolm on his apparent pre-election commitment to FTTN when he realises that it’s technically and economically infeasible. It could be just different enough from Labor’s approach to satisfy his boss Abbott. All politicians want to leave politics well-regarded, they all want to be remembered as having built something, or achieved something; but Turnbull, if he proceeds with FTTN, is simply the demolition-man: No one believes that FTTN is a long-term solution, not even Turnbull himself. The question is whether the bandwidth requirements outstrip FTTN or whether the copper deteriorates to disutility first.

I think Hackett was probably appointed because he is all for FTTB as an alternative for apartments. So we are still going to get a FTTN rollout. Nothing is changing folks, nothing to celebrate here, move along. He is also alone in a group of cronnies, so he will not have much of a say.

Unfortunately the foot soldiers aren’t allowed to join us here in the now… because the present they are told to support which is simply a copy/paste of the past (i.e. the same FttN topology they ironically opposed back in 2007 when the “others” suggested it and they even referred to as fraudband back then) now in 2013 has so few plusses it easier for them to just keep negatively and incorrectly, harping on about the real and superior previous NBN…

In other words they haven’t adjusted to being in government as yet…LOL

As you infer you supported (or rather reject that you didn’t support) Labor’s FttN in 2007, please supply one link (just one) which shows you openly supporting Labor’s FttN in 2007 (note not Telstra’s previous frivolous FttN talk, of course you supported that).

I’m sure as a dyed-in-the wool Telstra and Coalition fanboi, you were torn between two lovers re: the party and their silly OPEL plan (there we agree)… but just one obvious link saying Labor’s plan is the way to go in 2007.

Good luck, you’ll need it, because like unicorns, we both know such a beast doesn’t exist…

Oh come on, now, Fibroid. Liberal footsoldiers like yourself described the FTTN NBN policy that Labor took to the 2007 election six years ago as “fraudband”. Now, Liberal footsoldiers like yourself support the FTTN policy. Why? Not because it’s a good idea – everyone, six years on, is now in agreement that FTTN is truly fraudband – but because you support the Coalition and everything they do. You would defend them to the last.

‘Everyone (almost) else has moved on. There’s been an election – as you say the labor policy is now irrelevant – so why do you keep raising an irrelevant point as a response? ‘

So you are getting behind the Coalition NBN policy then, sorry I thought from the content of your and others posts you were still pushing Labor FTTP NBN policy, with no change whatever to the subject matter and the Coalition NBN policy bashing strategy, and it continued on as if an election never happened.

It’s great you have now decided the Labor policy is irrelevant and you have moved on.

I believe most of us are pushing to improve the problems in the Governments plan.

Those problems specifically being the long term cost of using a technology that has been superseded. The cost of the underlying infrastructure that said technology uses. And of course the problem of ensuring that we can get the best solution for the long term benefit of the nation.

Technologically, socially, and economically the Government plan of primarily FTTN is flawed.

‘Technologically, socially, and economically the Government plan of primarily FTTN is flawed.’

Not that any one has explained in any one of those three categories let lone all three why it is flawed, apparently just saying it is more than sufficient, and don’t expect any further facts to back it up.

At which point you inevitably deflect by oddly mentioning moving goal posts, tap dancing or abracadabra you just disappear. All to avoid the bleedin’ obvious.

Seriously, deny it all you like, but we’ve all seen it time and time again and laugh at each occasion because more often than not, we now lay odds on which tack you’ll use to avoid the facts and get it pretty much every time…LOL

So because you are unable (or rather I’d suggest more likely, not allowed) to actually accept the facts, doesn’t mean the facts don’t exist… Closing eyes and fingers in ears only blots out the facts… they are (sadly for you but gladly for all fair dinkum Aussies) still there.

Let’s say that the Coalition’s policy of opt-out internet filtering wasn’t discovered during the election campaign, and they carried it forward to today. By your logic, the Coalition were voted in, so we shouldn’t fight it and should just accept the filter policy sitting down. By your logic, the Coalition were voted in, so they can do no wrong.

Do you see the problem here? Governments aren’t about winners and losers, and trying to win – or at least they shouldn’t be. That’s politics. The political phase and electioneering are over though. Governments are about trying to get the best outcomes for their constituents – or at least they should be. Do you disagree with my assessment of what governments should and shouldn’t be?

Your example is flawed in the extreme, the internet filter policy was withdrawn before it was even released, I am not aware the Coalition withdrew their NBN policy that was released in April, well before the election, if you have have evidence they did please tell us about it.

Err Fibroid, if as you suggest they are belligerently going to implement it as per their BEFORE (in big shouty letters…) election policy anyway, why have wasteful reviews… just do it.

Because hellooo, OBVIOUSLY (also in big shouty letters) these reviews may actually suggest altering such a stupid… using obsolete copper which belongs to a private company, based FttN policy… I.e. altering their BEFORE (yes biggies again) election policy…!

You know, the government’s policy you defend and love 24/7, which is the exact same topology you and the Coalition opposed and hated in 2007… *unbelievable*

Good try but another own goal, the actual reviews are part of Coalition NBN policy not separate from it, it is on the bottom of Page 12 where they actually stated they would initiate three reviews if elected.

So guess what happened, they got elected and they are doing three reviews.

“Q1. If the government are going to implement their FttN policy regardless, why have 3 reviews?”

There seems only one reason. Turnbull’s stacked the review to go with what he wants. He needs the reviews to blame shift. In 5-10 years time when it becomes evident to even a Lib fanboi that FTTN is a dead end waste of money, he has an out.

Because the Coalition are not going to implement ‘their FTTN policy regardless’, they are your words not theirs, if you look at the Coalition policy under the heading NBN Co strategic review there are two key points in reference to FTTN :

“The estimated cost and time to complete the NBN if variations are made to the current plan, such as FTTN in established (brownfield) areas as proposed by the Coalition.”

“The economic viability of NBN Co under alternative strategies”

Doesn’t sound anything like a commitment to ‘implement FTTN regardless’ to me.

Oh… so after telling us (perhaps not in these exact words Mr Pedantic) the Coalition won the election, which included their brownfields FttN instead of FttP broadband policy and being so it is that policy they (having a mandate) will implement…

You now typically contradict yourself/back-flip and say FttN won’t be implemented regardless…?

Really?

Q. for the umpteenth time. Just as you did with the previous government, will you bag the present government if any of their policies announced pre-election are altered post election?

You deliberately failed to address the argument. If the Coalition released Policy X, doesn’t matter what Policy X is, how terrible Policy X is, you would accept it, you would defend it, because they won the election, and you would truly believe it would be in your best interests. Because it doesn’t matter what the Coalition does, to you they can do no wrong. It doesn’t matter what Labor does, they are the Enemy, and they can do no right.

So are you saying, if the policy was not contested that, post election you would not oppose mandatory filtering because it was a party policy?

Think carefully now. I’m asking you to confirm whether you would belligerently defend filtering in exactly the same way you’ve defending FTTN – all because it was coalition policy prior to an election.

Whether or not it was, post election is actually beside the point. Because you constantly refer to pre-election policy. Remember, filter was an actual policy. It existed. That Malcom had it struck is entirely because of the backlash – claiming a misunderstanding.

So. Again. I ask would you be defending it like you’ve defending other pre-election policies? I think we both know you would be.

Just like FTTN now is fantastic, but was ‘fraudband’ when Labor first called for input.

Oh for heavens sake, what would the savings be? Probably a few bucks only – this has been discussed in extremis.

By removing the multi-port NTD you remove the ability of the NBN to be a ubiquitous broadband communications medium and make it what we have now – a single-mode access that locks us into one RSP. This will keep prices high and prevent the ability of other companies to be able to deliver another service via the one device (IP-TV, Pay TV, Government Services, etc).

The 4 port NTD is the thing that delivers the ubiquity and competition that will deliver cheaper broadband – which is precisely why some in the industry (and their shills) are opposed to it!

Hey, look at it this way. Would you rather a fibre connection where you or the ISP provide the NTD, or FTTN (where you provide the VDSL modem anyway)?
If it makes them happy politically to say they are saving by not providing a full NTD, so be it. They will need to at least provide a simple NTD with phone port only, on demand, for those who never want BB but want to keep their phone.

Considering the minimum wholesale cost of one port on the NTD is $30 do you really think a user would choose to have 4 services delivered at a cost of $120 a month when any service you can think of could be delivered via a single ISP (you could easily have internode as your ISP and Foxtel as your paytv and government ehealth services etc.. as well all delivered over the internode connection)

I can really only see multi-port NTDs used by businesses for redundancy purposes and as simon has said they can be provide as requested. To have a truck roll just to install the NTD is incredibly wasteful when the vast majority of users would not want to waste an extra $30 a month (+markup) for something that could’ve been done on their single connection.

Optic Fibre isn’t “plug and play”. Accept that please. THAT has also been discussed endlessly on WP. If you have FTTP, you will have a truck roll.

IF you want FTTN, then you can self-install to your heart’s content – go for it

I can see a whole world where the ability to use all 4 ports on an NTD will keep the RSP’s honest (sorry Don Chipp). We need to get away from the old way of thinking – and a government owned NBN providing wholesale-only ubiquitous broadband access will allow us to start on this new journey.

However, with the “savings” being a matter of a few bucks, then I would personally be happy to spring for the difference.

I believe that 7T came up with a breakdown of the various costs, and the NTD was priced around $130 IIRC

I think the idea is that NBN Co saves the installation and NTD cost, and it gets passed on to the RSP who would send out their own technicians to install the device(?), who would pass the cost on to their customers. But there is obviously the issue of the ease of changing provider. I don’t understand enough about the technology, so I’m just spitballing here, but would assuming that the customer owns the port/NTD, plus a legally-upheld standard among devices, ease that issue somewhat?

The big issue with a single-port NTD is that it makes it hard to move from one RSP to another in any sort of a hurry. By having a spare port you can move to anew RSP instantaneoulsy. This will keep the RSP’s on their toes – and is probably the big reason why Simon pushed that barrow.

I wouldn’t have thought it would make any difference to go from 4 ports to two (or just one) the money needed for the development has been spent, the unit is in production. They don’t need to spend *any* more money to deliver the product. They would only require more money to nobble the device down to two or one ports – pointless in other words.

I’ll defer to others, but the savings would be tiny, and would only allow anti-competitive behaviour to flourish

Well, there are the technicians’ install costs, not just the cost of the equipment, to consider – if we were to let the RSP do the installation that is (which is Simon’s suggestion, I believe). If you could recall where the cost-breakdown done by 7T is for me, I’d like to have a look at that.

Also, I was under the impression that Simon’s single-port idea was to be a far simpler device. I was wondering whether that simple single-port device could be changed to a simple dual-port device, or if in fact you’d have to have a complex NTD like we have now (in which case, why bother? A working design exists.)

Why is it not plug and play? Simon Hackett seems to think it is. He even says that there are low cost commercially available GPON routers on the market. What is different about plugging a fibre patch lead in vs a copper patch lead?

Because the Network Boundary Point is the NTD. Your router plugs into the ethernet port of the NTD. You could also plug a PC straight nto the NTD, negating the need for a router in certain circumstances

You have issues with safety and service agreements when customers play with fibre leads – it isn’t as easy as may be thought. What if there’s a bit of dirt on the face of the patch lead. When the NBN sends a tech out to fix the inevitable fault, the customer is going to be rather upset when they get billed for the service call from their “free install” NTD wouldn’t you think?

What about the drongo who looks “down” the fibre and burn his eyesight out?

There are other problems with customers playing with network equipment as well, surely it’s better to let the network operator look after the gear?

It’s not better if it leads to billions being wasted to install something which looks like a complete mess. And it’s certainly not better if the only option is ISP supplied NTD with FTTP vs ISP supplied NTD with FTTN. I’d choose FTTP every time.

The NTD delivery is actually quite elegant and simple to use – and allows the use of multiple services. I am, of course, referring to the lastest version install with the one inside box. the original installs were indeed a complete mess!

An RSP supplied single port NTD will perpetuate the stranglehold on each customer that they currently have.

There will be NO savings, as the customer will be required to pay for the (RSP supplied) NTD (whether through a plan or up front matters not) and it WILL require a truck-roll to install it.

Since NBN last reported on install costs that they were below their projections, you can hardly argue that they will be then expecting the costs to be greater – and with NBN now being expected to “negotiate” with Telstra to buy the copper, we will all end up paying for Abbott & Turnbulls’ Fraudbad Folly!

The battery backup box is next to useless as it only keeps PSTN alive. It would be possible for consumer routers to be manufactured that all in one could do the job of the battery backup box / ntd /router and it would provide backup internet and wireless as well. That’s 3 devices into 1. Way neater and I don’t see any issues with self install. I also don’t see why the same device couldn’t be used with different isps just as we do now with ADSL routers.

jay i believe there was a firmware rollout in the last month or two that makes the battery backup also good for IP – had a power outage here in Qld with storms the other week; the NTD kicked into battery mode and continued serving pages; no worries. mind you having a UPS for the router also helps, but as long as you can supply power to the network consuming devices you can continue right on as you were the instant before power outage. much more useful than only the UNI-V (which im not using atm anyways).

aiui the new setup is fibre patch on wall to NTD to router or direct PC link. no battery backup box installed with NTD unless requested.

> I can see a whole world where the ability to use all 4 ports on an NTD will keep the RSP’s honest (sorry Don Chipp). We need to get away from the old way of thinking – and a government owned NBN providing wholesale-only ubiquitous broadband access will allow us to start on this new journey.

The gold plated NTD is a good example of Labor’s waste. As of April 2013, 47% of NBN fibre connections were 12Mbps. Just how many of those people do you think would using more than 1 port? Why would you use more than 1 port when for $15 extra (retail) you would have more than 4 times the speed? To suggest that most people will use more than one port is almost as laughable as expecting most people will have 1Gbps connections on the NBN under Labor’s plan

> However, with the “savings” being a matter of a few bucks, then I would personally be happy to spring for the difference.

Simon’s comments in ways to cut costs suggested it would be more than just a few dollars. For argument’s sake lets say it was $30 extra for 9 million connections. Only an extra $27 million (plus 15 years of interest payments). Simon is also perfectly happy for you to pay the extra money for a 4 port NTD if you require it.

The thing is, as Fat Pat pointed out, the unit has been designed and is in production already. Call it Labor waste if you like – whatever – it would certainly be waste if you stopped using it. The actual per unit cost isn’t that high, so the savings there aren’t that high. And who gets the savings anyway? Under the original plan, the user pays (but the cost is spread out in monthly bills for several decades). If the RSP rolls it out, the RSP will just pass the cost on to the user anyway. They’re just more likely to be stuck on a contract or pay a larger connection fee.

You calculated $270 million (you made a typo) by multiplying $30 by 9 million homes, plus interest. Divide that again by the number of users. Divide that by the number of years it will take to repay the investment, divide that by 12 (the number of months in a year), and you get the extra monthly cost to the user. I’d be interested to see what you come up with.

You have to look at the relative cost of a simpler structure (e.g. single-port, no fancy electronics and firmware) – is it much different? How much would it cost?

Assuming the difference is about $100, that extra cost is spread out over 15 years or so, so, what, 55c (real, not nominal) per month for a significantly better piece of kit.

Then you have to consider what benefits it actually confers – there’s legacy handset support (though I wouldn’t mind dropping the UNI-V ports personally) and let people supply their own battery backups (the battery backups are optional now though anyway), the ability to easily and smoothly switch ISP with zero downtime by simply switching the port you plug your router or PC into makes the competitive environment that much better and keeps ISPs from locking people into their service because of the inconvenience of switching ISP. Having the redundancy is valuable.

Then you have to consider in the case where the RSP supplies their units, that consumers would have to pay the FULL cost of deployment anyway (truck roll, technician time, and unit cost) either up-front or hidden in their monthly fees and contracts, with profit thrown in for the RSP, and without the benefit of economies of scale.

Probably the simplest design that meets the aforementioned outcomes would have 2 data ports, and would be supplied by NBN Co; and in most cases that would be just perfect (it would even suit those who want separate home and business connections for example). But once again, the question is, how much money is even saved between a 2-port data-only device, and the current 2+4 port NTD?

I’m not convinced either way on this one. I can certainly see the appeal of multiple ports on an NTD of a single standard though. If a single port makes the NBN roll-out significantly *faster* (i.e. the resources dedicated to the NTD install can be transferred to fibre drops elsewhere), then I can get behind it, though I’d probably still request the standard NTD myself. If it’s only cheaper, then I think that the benefit of multiple ports, battery back-up, a standard device, etc outweigh the price considerations, considering the NBN is meant to repay its own investment anyway.

So anyway, Mathew, you don’t still support FTTN do you?

And I’m still waiting for a comprehensive case for purely-CVC-based charging (with no AVC charge). I’m not closed to the idea.

> I’ve never been a fan of FTTN, but the reality that under Labor’s plan, FTTN would deliver the same or better result than FTTP for around half of Australia.

No, Mathew, that is NOT the reality. Under Labor’s plan, at least half would be much better off, and at most half would be at least a little better off with FTTP than otherwise. Anyone who, today, uses a basic service (or only a phone), would still be better off with fibre. Anyone who, today, uses broadband, would be much better off with fibre.

There is no evidence or justification for the idea that “FTTN would deliver the same or better result than FTTP for half of Australia”, and that is a factually incorrect statement. Please retract it.

>> And I’m still waiting for a comprehensive case for purely-CVC-based charging (with no AVC charge). I’m not closed to the idea.

> I think there should be a nominal charge for AVC. Why not work on the numbers yourself? I’d be curious to see what assumptions you make.

You should put forward your case, as you are the one making the assertion. Unless you don’t have one?

> No, Mathew, that is NOT the reality. Under Labor’s plan, at least half would be much better off, and at most half would be at least a little better off with FTTP than otherwise. Anyone who, today, uses a basic service (or only a phone), would still be better off with fibre. Anyone who, today, uses broadband, would be much better off with fibre.

You’ve overstated the case that half would be much better off. Lets look at the numbers from Labor’s NBNCo Corporate Plan:
* Only 70% of premises passed by fibre will connect
* ~50% will connect at 12Mbps (quarter the speed offered by FTTN in 2019)
* Based on this 35% may be better off with FTTP
* Greenfields will still receive FTTP (~22%), so that reduces it down to 28%.

From the 28% who might be worse off, you then need to exclude:
* Those who won’t notice a real difference between 50 and 100Mbps
* Those who purchase fibre on demand (at ~$3000 the investment is quickly returned compared to Labor’s $150/month in AVC)

I’ll leave you to suggest some estimates for those numbers, but the reality is that Labor’s incompetence means FTTN is not as bad an option as it should be.

> There is no evidence or justification for the idea that “FTTN would deliver the same or better result than FTTP for half of Australia”, and that is a factually incorrect statement. Please retract it.

Now that I’ve provided the evidence, will you issue a retraction?

As for an example of people worse off under Labor’s NBN plan?
* My parents currently have a 16Mbps ADSL2+ connection. As they are on a pension they would opt for cheapest option so would end up with a slower connection
* Labor planned to bypass towns of under 1000 premises and push those communities onto wireless while maintaining the copper phone lines. Those communities should be better served by FTTN, especially as most premises are with a 1km of the exchange.

God Mathew, WTH is wrong with you? How much do your parents currently pay for their ADSL2+ Internet service + phone line? $60/month in total or thereabouts? Entry level FTTP NBN plans at 12mbps are half that. Add a phone service for $10/month and they’re still $20/month better off. They could be $10/month better off on 25mbps, or for the same money they’ll be on 50mbps.

Now please explain how your poor parents will be worse off under FTTP? Not how they will be worse off in comparison to your fictional ideal NBN where $30/month gets you 1gbps fibre.

> How much do your parents currently pay for their ADSL2+ Internet service + phone line? $60/month in total or thereabouts?

There current ADSL plan is $59.95 (including nodephone)

> Entry level FTTP NBN plans at 12mbps are half that. Add a phone service for $10/month and they’re still $20/month better off. They could be $10/month better off on 25mbps, or for the same money they’ll be on 50mbps.

Internode, so cheapest NBN plan is $49.95 + $5 for Nodephone. So potentially $5/month better off financially for the loss of 4Mbps in speed.

> Now please explain how your poor parents will be worse off under FTTP? Not how they will be worse off in comparison to your fictional ideal NBN where $30/month gets you 1gbps fibre.

Two points:
1. The 12Mbps plan price points are discounted and reliant on NBNCo being able to raise ARPU from under $30/month to over $100/month
2. The fibre would be capable of running 1Gbps by simply changing a software setting. Their low quota would limit their impact on the network, so it wouldn’t be noticeable.

If the NBN is going to be subsidised by charging power users more, I’d rather that the charges where weighted towards data rather than speed, because this has more chance of people experiencing the real benefits of the NBN. The selfish advantage is that when I visit, I just need to give Dad $20 for the extra data block consumed by the kids watching videos, rather than a complicated speed upgrade / downgrade process.

> You’ve overstated the case that half would be much better off. Lets look at the numbers from Labor’s NBNCo Corporate Plan:
* Only 70% of premises passed by fibre will connect
* ~50% will connect at 12Mbps (quarter the speed offered by FTTN in 2019)”
* Based on this 35% may be better off with FTTP
* Greenfields will still receive FTTP (~22%), so that reduces it down to 28%.

Actually it’s:
* 100% of premises in the fixed-line footprint will be passed by fibre under FTTP, including 22% Greenfields – only the Greenfields will be passed by fibre under the Coalition’s FTTN-focused plan
* 78% of premises are Brownfields
* Only 70% of ALL premises passed by fibre will connect
* Therefore, 30% of ALL premises will be no better off under FTTP or FTTN (as they do not use fixed-line internet)
* less than 50% of those will require 12Mbps (1/2 the speed offered by FTTN in 2016^, or 1/83 the speed offered by FTTP in 2021)
^ only 90% of the fixed-line footprint will have get an upgrade to a minimum of 50Mbps under FTTN, therefore we retain a minimum of 25Mbps if we are considering the lot
* more than 50% of those will connect at higher speeds better than ADSL’s maximum and FTTN’s guarantee – in other words, more than 35% of all premises would be much better off
* based on this, less than 35% of all premises will require 12Mbps – they will still be a little better off under FTTP, because of the reliability of the service, the stability, the latency, and its lower prices, and better services driven by competition – they would still only require a 12Mbps service under FTTN but will gain no advantage in reliability, stability and latency; even if they are part of the Greenfields, they will still only require 12Mbps and order that service.

You have conflated “what is delivered” with “what is required” in several instances, and with several inconsistencies. I have corrected those errors.

> I’ll leave you to suggest some estimates for those numbers, but the reality is that Labor’s incompetence means FTTN is not as bad an option as it should be.

You keep talking about “the reality” but it’s clear that it’s just some logically-inconsistent fantasy of yours.
How you could in one moment talk about 1Gbps-for-all, and then in the next, push the idea that FTTN is a good idea, and somehow in your mind a better idea than FTTP: It’s a complete farce.

And you still have not provided a case for your 1Gbps-for-all-scenario, which I await eagerly.

I don’t know why I keep responding to you when you are so infuriatingly selective and misrepresentative of information. You also have a clear problem with avoiding the questions being asked. I guess I just have an issue with leaving your poorly-substantiated assertions unanswered.

Clearly less than you. I’m going to keep this short and point out only your most obvious and clearly wrong statements.

> Actually it’s:
> * 100% of premises in the fixed-line footprint will be passed by fibre under FTTP, including 22% Greenfields – only the Greenfields will be passed by fibre under the Coalition’s FTTN-focused plan

WRONG. Labor’s FTTP plan was to connect 93% of premises with fibre. In my post I clearly pointed out that towns that currently have ADSL would not have received FTTP under Labor’s plan.

> based on this, less than 35% of all premises will require 12Mbps – they will still be a little better off under FTTP, because of the reliability of the service, the stability, the latency, and its lower prices, and better services driven by competition

Competition is likely to still exist with FTTN and wireless providers put an upper limit on what can be charged. A shorter distance to the node will increase stability and latency. If less money is spent then prices are likely to be cheaper. Secondly if people are choosing the basic service, then they are unlikely to care about tiny improvements so this is irrelevant.

You have conflated “what is delivered” with “what is required” in several instances, and with several inconsistencies. I have corrected those errors.

>> I’ll leave you to suggest some estimates for those numbers, but the reality is that Labor’s incompetence means FTTN is not as bad an option as it should be.

> You keep talking about “the reality” but it’s clear that it’s just some logically-inconsistent fantasy of yours.
How you could in one moment talk about 1Gbps-for-all, and then in the next, push the idea that FTTN is a good idea, and somehow in your mind a better idea than FTTP: It’s a complete farce.

I’ve never said that FTTN is a good idea. I’ve merely said that Labor’s incompetence means that FTTN is a valid option when looking at the end-user experience for the majority. This means two things: Labor’s NBN would never have delivered the benefits they promised and Labor had very little understanding of what they were attempting to achieve.

> And you still have not provided a case for your 1Gbps-for-all-scenario, which I await eagerly.

I’ve explained numerous times that it is data that places more load on the network and that rebalancing the wholesale rates (which will occur over time anyway) will deliver a better outcome for all Australians.

> I don’t know why I keep responding to you when you are so infuriatingly selective and misrepresentative of information. You also have a clear problem with avoiding the questions being asked. I guess I just have an issue with leaving your poorly-substantiated assertions unanswered.

I’ve focused on the end-user experience rather than the technology being used. My poorly substantiated assertions are mostly based on information in the NBNCo Corporate Plan, where as you have made factually wrong statements.

> Clearly less than you. I’m going to keep this short and point out only your most obvious and clearly wrong statements.

In other words, you’re going to be selective with your information, selective with what you choose to reply to, and not actually address the entire thing in full. True to form, Mathew. I expected no different, but still, what a disappointment.

>> Actually it’s:
> * 100% of premises in the fixed-line footprint will be passed by fibre under FTTP, including 22% Greenfields – only the Greenfields will be passed by fibre under the Coalition’s FTTN-focused plan

> WRONG. Labor’s FTTP plan was to connect 93% of premises with fibre. In my post I clearly pointed out that towns that currently have ADSL would not have received FTTP under Labor’s plan.

Your failure to read does you no credit. I said quite clearly, “in the fixed-line footprint”

>> based on this, less than 35% of all premises will require 12Mbps – they will still be a little better off under FTTP, because of the reliability of the service, the stability, the latency, and its lower prices, and better services driven by competition

> Competition is likely to still exist with FTTN and wireless providers put an upper limit on what can be charged. A shorter distance to the node will increase stability and latency. If less money is spent then prices are likely to be cheaper.

I never claimed otherwise.

> Secondly if people are choosing the basic service, then they are unlikely to care about tiny improvements so this is irrelevant.

Not irrelevant at all. “unlikely” Pure unsubstantiated conjecture. “tiny improvements” Massive improvements; this depends on each user’s own perspective. The fact is you can’t pick and choose here. Do they or do they not receive a better service? They do. Your assertion that FTTN can be better is utterly false.

>>> I’ll leave you to suggest some estimates for those numbers, but the reality is that Labor’s incompetence means FTTN is not as bad an option as it should be.

>> You keep talking about “the reality” but it’s clear that it’s just some logically-inconsistent fantasy of yours.
How you could in one moment talk about 1Gbps-for-all, and then in the next, push the idea that FTTN is a good idea, and somehow in your mind a better idea than FTTP: It’s a complete farce.

> I’ve never said that FTTN is a good idea.

You have fully supported FTTN, but this likely because it was Coalition policy, not because it was a good idea. In fact, I suspect that you don’t care about real outcomes, you only wish to fight for the Coalition and against whatever Labor has ever touched. Evidence for this is, despite your supposed belief in 1Gbps-for-all, you will settle and even fight for FTTN.

> I’ve merely said that Labor’s incompetence means that FTTN is a valid option when looking at the end-user experience for the majority. This means two things: Labor’s NBN would never have delivered the benefits they promised and Labor had very little understanding of what they were attempting to achieve.

Your claims are unsubstantiated, and nothing but pure conjecture. I have continually asked for you to substantiate your claims, and you have failed to do so.

>> And you still have not provided a case for your 1Gbps-for-all-scenario, which I await eagerly.

> I’ve explained numerous times that it is data that places more load on the network and that rebalancing the wholesale rates (which will occur over time anyway) will deliver a better outcome for all Australians.

Show me the numbers. Show me your assumptions. Show me graphs even, I’m a visual learner.

>> I don’t know why I keep responding to you when you are so infuriatingly selective and misrepresentative of information. You also have a clear problem with avoiding the questions being asked. I guess I just have an issue with leaving your poorly-substantiated assertions unanswered.

> I’ve focused on the end-user experience rather than the technology being used. My poorly substantiated assertions are mostly based on information in the NBNCo Corporate Plan, where as you have made factually wrong statements.

I have made no factually wrong statements in this thread. Your focus on the end-user experience is actually AGAINST the end-user experience, not FOR the end-user experience, and that’s where your problem lies.

> Your failure to read does you no credit. I said quite clearly, “in the fixed-line footprint”

In the fixed-line footprint, I take to be where copper currently runs, not where Labor planned to connect fibre.

> Not irrelevant at all. “unlikely” Pure unsubstantiated conjecture. “tiny improvements” Massive improvements; this depends on each user’s own perspective.

The perspective we are talking about is the 50% who have opted for 12Mbps. These people are unlikely to be demanding users and therefore a difference in performance would need to be significant and larger than other influences (e.g. websites under load, slow DNS, network congestion, etc.)

> I have made no factually wrong statements in this thread. Your focus on the end-user experience is actually AGAINST the end-user experience, not FOR the end-user experience, and that’s where your problem lies.

The last time builders cut through my copper cable, I used an Optus 3G dongle and I was pleasantly surprised that at 3Mbps for the most part the performance was not noticeably different or more unstable than my 11Mbps ADSL connection. Considering that I spent 90% of the time connected via VPNs with sessions open to servers, instability would have been noticed.

I’ll make the point again that for the at least 50%, I seriously doubt they would notice the difference between 12Mbps ADSL and 12Mbps FTTP when browsing facebook. Sure a gamer playing a FPS with ping statistics would, but they are unlikely to be in the 50% connected at 12Mbps.

>> Your failure to read does you no credit. I said quite clearly, “in the fixed-line footprint”

> In the fixed-line footprint, I take to be where copper currently runs, not where Labor planned to connect fibre.

And you are wrong.

>> Not irrelevant at all. “unlikely” Pure unsubstantiated conjecture. “tiny improvements” Massive improvements; this depends on each user’s own perspective.

> The perspective we are talking about is the 50% who have opted for 12Mbps. These people are unlikely to be demanding users and therefore a difference in performance would need to be significant and larger than other influences (e.g. websites under load, slow DNS, network congestion, etc.)

That’s not what we were talking about. You try to downplay the significance, and I counter it. It’s a simple disagreement. You think I’m wrong (because it suits your argument), and I think you’re wrong (because it is true, but also because it suits my argument). We will never agree on this, and you will never be objectively correct. The less than 50% who opt for the basic service do benefit a little or a lot (depending on what their connection is like now) and it is certainly not “irrelevant”. This person switched from his poor connection (unspecified) to an NBN fixed wireless connection: presumably, he is on the lowest speed plan, and yet he talks about how revolutionary it is for him. Are you going to completely reject and deny his experience? The fact is, 12Mbps is close to or better than the national mean, mode and median averages. The fact is, fibre provides far greater reliability, stability and latency improvements, among other improvements, over the copper. The fact is, the NBN is offered for far better prices. That’s my evidence. What you have is a simple assertion “no, they don’t benefit” in favour of your argument.

>> I have made no factually wrong statements in this thread. Your focus on the end-user experience is actually AGAINST the end-user experience, not FOR the end-user experience, and that’s where your problem lies.

> The last time builders cut through my copper cable, I used an Optus 3G dongle and I was pleasantly surprised that at 3Mbps for the most part the performance was not noticeably different or more unstable than my 11Mbps ADSL connection. Considering that I spent 90% of the time connected via VPNs with sessions open to servers, instability would have been noticed.

Thank you for your anecdote. I would suggest that you are an outlier. I’m not sure why you think you want 1Gbps when you barely max out 3Mbps. And if your 3Mbps wireless connection was as good as your 11Mbps ADSL connection, that suggests that your copper connection was quite poor, providing further anecdotal evidence against the viability of FTTN.

> I’ll make the point again that for the at least 50%, I seriously doubt they would notice the difference between 12Mbps ADSL and 12Mbps FTTP when browsing facebook. Sure a gamer playing a FPS with ping statistics would, but they are unlikely to be in the 50% connected at 12Mbps.

When you reduce the argument to “browsing facebook” you are being disingenuous and unrealistic. Even today, people on ADSL do far more than just “browse facebook”. Even if all they did was “browse facebook”, they’d also use services like youtube and facebook’s own embedded videos, requiring the full extent of the 12Mbps connection. They would certainly notice a difference. Besides, it is far more likely that most of these people who only “browse facebook” would be part of the 30% who don’t sign up to the NBN at all, not part of the less than 35% who sign up for the basic NBN service.

Stop pushing this argument. You have nothing more than your own assertions to support it.

> What you need to show is significant, noticeably improvements.

What you need is to not cherry-pick parts of the comment, so that you can avoid parts that are unfavourable, and instead reply to the lot. Ignoring the argument doesn’t make it go away, it just demonstrates your irrational belligerence.

The one thing I’ve learned from Turnbull is that
“Turnbull does NOTHING that’s not in Turnbull’s best interest”.
Whilst “on the surface” this is great news, I’ll be holding off the party for a bit yet.

It occurs to me that if Malcolm had finally seen the [monocromatic] light then there would be no better appointment.

I suspect if anyone could, it would be Hackett that has the ability to mount a highly compelling argument for more fibre that even Tony Abbott couldn’t refute with access to all the data.

You (and fibroid) remind me of a story I read yesterday. White supremist, pushing his agenda to have his town be whites only, was shown proof that he was descended from Saharan africans. 14% to be precise.

His response was to declare the evidence as non-scientific, and justify it as “statistical noise”. It didnt fit his mentality to accept that he had negroid blood in his system, and by his own definition couldnt live in his town. The look on his face was priceless.

You’re not much different. Put as much proof in front of you as is humanly possible, and you fob it off as statistical noise. There will be some minor point or so that, in your mind at least, renders the rest of the information as useless. Yet when it goes the other way and people prove your points invalid, its just “labor fanbois” or some other tag that are just showing their bias, or desire to download their porn faster, or some other bullshit excuse.

FttN is a colossal waste of money, and serves no significant beneficial purpose to Australia. But you dont have it in you to even debate the point, or even consider that you could be wrong. Which actually amuses the rest of us most of the time.

I’m not going to bother going through every example with you, as you simply ignore every comment you dont like. Let me give you an example.

The Los Angeles FttH story, you asked me for a response outlaying why I think FttN is a waste of money. I gave it, go read it. You ignored the response, I choose to assume its because you didnt like the answer as it was inconvenient to your stance.

As I said in that response, our internet usage has been remarkably consistent in that it doubles every two years. Minor variations aside (its actually a little ahead of that), extrapolating that number into the future shows FttN wont deliver on our needs very shortly after the plan is finished, even if its on time and on budget.

But thats conjecture to you, so you ignore it. Even if the dates are out by a year or two, the problems are laid out as plain as day, but you’ve ignored it and moved on. There’s nothing wrong with the conclusions, but every time someone lays it out in front of you, you disappear.

Simple fact: At the very consistent rate of growth the entire world has experienced for decades, FttN will be outdated at approximately the same time the rollout is completed here. No conjecture there, its extrapolation based on historical data.

A rational argument against FttN, ignored by the anti-FttH crowd such as yourself and haha yeah. Backed up by decades of evidence.

I’ll tell you whats conjecture, Turnbulls claims that FttN can be rolled out by 2016. There is no evidence to say he can achieve that. To date, he’s rolled out zero FttN, and at that rate it will take him until infinity to roll it out.

Really? That disappoints me. It seems a shoot first, ask questions later mentality, but oh well.

The white supremist comment, fair enough. It wasnt comparing him to that level of society, it was comparing him to someone who goes to extremes to ignore information put in front of him. No offence was intended. But how about asking what I meant before threatening the banhammer? And please note that I didnt compare him to the individuals beliefs, but was setting the scene.

If you knew my family history you’d know how disgusting my personal feelings towards people like that are. I ‘d never compare anyone to them or their beliefs. Quite the opposite.

As for the comments about it being a colossal waste of money, again, look at my comments. I’ve justified my claim, go read the LA FttH comments for the full argument. Summary is that if our net needs continue to rise at the rate they have for [bold] decades [/bold] then it gets finished in 2019, just in time for our needs to go beyond the 80 Mbps it is expected to deliver at peak speeds.

At which point, its $30b for a project that has 2 years service before it needs upgrading. If that isnt a waste of money, I dont know what is, and for the amount this project is costing, colossal isnt a far stretch. As I said, read my other post I reference. Do you think $29.5b for something that quite possibly needs upgrading in 2021 is value for money?

Where is that extrapolation so wrong I deserve a 1 month ban? I back my comments up with my logic and numbers. If you disagree, thats your right, but prove my conclusions wrong before you threaten to ban me. If you still think its so wrong that I deserve a 1 month ban, then so be it. I guess my time here has ended. And you lose a voice that has experience, and backs his statements up.

Which is sad considering the various other commentators that dont back their statements up, ever. You say this is an evidence based site, which is ironic when you threaten to ban someone that actually provides it while letting those that dont carry on trolling daily.

I think we can all agree that upgrading Telstra’s copper network to FTTN would deliver significantly faster broadband speeds to most Australians currently on ADSL.

That’s a technical fact, and I don’t think you can argue with that. Because of this, your comment is irrational. You can argue something does not represent value for money, but you can’t argue that upgrading the copper to FTTN would have absolutely no point — because it would clearly deliver significant service delivery outcomes.

Fair enough. Let me be clear though. Fibroid pisses me off, and at times I will emphasise a point beyond where it probably needs to be. Haha yeah, not quite as much, he appears to just be trolling for laughs, but fibroid NEVER answers any responses that give any justification. Between the two of them though, a comment here or there is going to be a little sensationalised at times as I get pissed off needing to address what I see as closed minds. We all fall for it.

Yes, FttN is a step above copper. I wasnt referencing that with my comment, only looking at a superfast broadband world, comparing FttH and FttN. In that regard, it is a waste of money in my opinion, and serves no purpose beyond maintaining our sub-par global ranking at the dismal level it is at the moment.

$29.5b Govt debt for a service that provides “up to” 100 Mbps versus $30.4b Govt debt for one that starts at that level. And that line alone gives 2 or 3 areas that I’m refering to with the attitudes of haha yeah and fibroid. And frankly I get sick of having to repeat the same information to the same people for those same people to ignore again and again.

Please, I think I’ve backed my comments up enough in the past that rather than go straight for the banhammer, you can at least ask for context with a statement first. Dont need to agree, just get clarification first.

End of the day, if you want to allow people like fibroid and haha yeah to make their own wild claims without backing them up, give the rest of us some respect when we react. We wouldnt be so pissed off with them if they actually engaged in debate rather than just trolling most of the time. And fibroid repeating all his Liberal spiel without evidence isnt debate. Its propaganda.

I don’t think you should concede that. The choice is between FTTN and FTTP. No one has suggested staying on the copper. Picking between the two, where the delivery times and government funding is very similar yet the outcomes are vastly different (particularly in terms of meeting future demand and the actual longevity of the infrastructure), FTTN does well-deserve the label “pointless”. It is pointless to spend billions of dollars on a network that is effectively obsolete moments after it’s built.

Anyway, I don’t know why you’ve been singled-out for irrationality. I haven’t noticed Mathew’s irrational and oft-repeated “FTTN would deliver the same or better result than FTTP for around half of Australia.” (or phrased similarly) leading him to be singled-out.

No, no it’s not. In the medium term, a lot of people will be staying on HFC while either is built, and if we get FTTN, a lot of people won’t shift off HFC for a decade or more. Then there is FTTB, which is viable for many metropolitan areas. We’re not looking at a binary choice here. And of course, long-term, there is only FTTP, but that’s in the long term. A lot of people will, of course, be served by some form of mobile broadband, as they are already.

“Picking between the two, where the delivery times and government funding is very similar yet the outcomes are vastly different (particularly in terms of meeting future demand and the actual longevity of the infrastructure)”

Uh, no. Even Mike Quigley has acknowledged that FTTN is much faster to deploy than FTTP. That’s a fact. And current rollout speeds under FTTP are backing this up. FTTP takes a *lot* longer.

“FTTN does well-deserve the label “pointless”. It is pointless to spend billions of dollars on a network that is effectively obsolete moments after it’s built.”

IT’S NOT POINTLESS WE GET FASTER SPEEDS. SPEEDS WE DON’T HAVE NOW. OBJECTIVELY THERE IS SOME POINT AS COUNTRIES LIKE THE UK HAVE STARKLY PROVEN. AND YOU CAN UPGRADE FROM FTTN TO FTTP DOWN THE TRACK.

You people have got to understand that “FTTP or nothing” is not a viable concept. It’s a joke.

What we’re seeing around the world is a mix of FTTN and FTTP, with some FTTB and also a lot of wireless. Even Japan does FTTB with wireless from the basement. You people love to simplify things down drastically, but the reality is that it’s a very complex discussion. We’re seeing heterogeneous networks globally, not homogenous networks. The sooner you ram that down your craw, the more likely I am to take your comments seriously.

I, for one, am fucking tired of such imbecilic arguments being made on Delimiter. If you want to argue that there is absolutely no point to deploying FTTN under any circumstances whatsoever, then I encourage you to fuck off and comment on some other site, because I, for one, have had a gutfull of a very complex discussion being reduced constantly, even on articles that have nothing to do with it, to “FTTN versus FTTP”.

This is clearly a point that frustrates you, but something I doubt people will agree on if they have their specific opinion. $30b isnt an insignificant amount, so to plenty of us it becomes a pointless exercise when there is no time for anyone to recoup that cost, before they have to start investing in the next era of technology, or have Australia start to fall behind again.

50 Mbps for a service, delivered at a time when we’ll be looking at over that speed as a standard speed. With speeds clearly doubling every 2 years, how do they serve our needs in 2021? Or 2023? My point, and others, is that whatever benefit we gain from upgrading is lost through the cost that doesnt appear to be recoup-able.

Just out of curiosity Renai, when do YOU think we’ll need the 100 Mbps plus that FttH delivers? I’ve gone on record as 2021, and justified why. But what about you? So far you’ve argued that there is a short term benefit of upgrading from ADSL2 to FttN, but when do you think FttN will become outdated? Thats the long term date you mention in regards FttH.

By the way, I’d like to point out that once again fibroid hasnt responded to my post above, specifically laying out the reasons I disagree with him. This is his standard approach and make no mistake, he would have seen it. Consider how much thats going to piss people off that take the time to answer his accusations with their reasoning.

once again you conflate 100Mbps speeds only with FTTP. HFC cable is delivering 100Mbps speeds to many Australians *right now* and yet you appear to be arguing that the only future is FTTP. And you also completely failed to address the FTTB issue, which is also capable of delivering speeds of 100Mbps and is doing so in some areas in Australia right now.

You have got to get your brain out of this FTTP versus FTTN debate. It’s a false dichotomy. If you don’t, yes, I will apply the banhammer.

Les see if I can answer this without 2 pages of junk. Using FttN v FttH is simply a convenience to stop going off on tangents every time the debate comes up. If you like, I’ll refer to it as >100MBps v <100Mbps as thats just as accurate. Little harder to follow, but just as good a summary.

But using FttH v FttN isnt dumbing it down, its simplifying the terminology. Most here, on both sides, fully understand that its more than just those 2 technologies. As the others are mostly a done deal though (personally, that includes FttB – see below), we tend not to refer to them and simplify it down to what can change.

You've run this site long enough to know that people are going to summarise online, its a natural thing to do. At the pub over a beer, you have the time to fully spell things out and get into detail, but thats not always the case online.

What happens in 2023 when our needs hit 200 Mbps? Its that simple. What happens then? The Liberals are building a network that for the most part expires at that point. HFC and FttN either need to be upgraded, with technology not yet usable in any practical form, or replaced with FttH anyway.

Is that worth it? This is the key problem I have, and I have repeated that over and over with no response from anyone against FttH. FttN and HFC have a useby date that we're very quickly coming up to, and it worries me that people arent starting to plan for that day.

FttB, I dont reference it because I think we'll get it one way or another anyway. It still has limitations, but I expect the copper loops will be small enough that they can push speeds through fast enough to find a solution, or wait til the MDU's need to do repairs that would be seeing fiber anyway.

I tried to add to the last post (edit time ran out) that I dont actually have any problem with FttN if thats what we end up with, and I've said as much in the past. But while the debate is still ongoing, make no mistake that I'm going to voice what I see as issues with it.

By the way, fibroid still hasnt responded to my post. Not an unusual situation for him, but dont you find it strange that he baits and then ignores people when they give substance?

And I still put more waffle in than I wanted, even after retyping it twice…

The tl;dr version is: As soon as you complete FTTN, demand will be right behind or have outpaced it. How do you meet demand then? As soon as you complete FTTN, you have to make a new investment in FTTP. How do you pay for the original investment then? FTTN, today, is a pointless exercise.

…

If we had started rolling out FTTN 6 or more years ago, if we owned the copper or if the copper were cheap to buy or lease, if the copper were in better-repair, then FTTN would be a great idea. That’s a lot of if’s. If such a thing had occurred, well, we would be on it now, and we’d be discussing using vectoring to buy us time until we can upgrade, and we would be talking about the inevitable move to FTTP, what form it should take and when it should begin. It would probably be less of a political football. Too bad that’s not the case.

Sure, I was mistaken to phrase it as a dichotomy. I admit that. But in my mind, the implication was clear – we are talking about the Brownfields footprint for which the Coalition had, prior to the election, dictated FTTN. Now we are arguing for FTTP in those areas, and against FTTN. FTTB, wireless, and other technologies were outside of the scope of discussion.

I agree that FTTB would be very well suited to MDU’s (and NBN Co had already been trialling it, right?), as the copper distances are relatively short and probably in better repair. But even then, they are a stop-gap measure. Fibre is the end-game. However, they, at least, would stop the gap for long enough to meet growing demand and recoup investment.

Wireless is no substitute. What is delivered and what is required are different things. Imagine if you moved house, and the only option there was wireless, while your last home was FTTP. The previous resident found that wireless was perfectly suited to his purposes, but you obviously don’t feel the same. Too bad.

HFC, as you point out, could serve to stop the gap. In an ideal world, the NBN would have been rolled out to areas currently inadequately-served, e.g. not areas covered by HFC. But this is the real world, and HFC coverage is patchy at best, and where is HFC coverage found anyway? In denser, more affluent urban areas, where it would be cheapest to deploy infrastructure, and where the bulk of its revenue would come from to repay its investment.

Honestly, I’m disappointed that the most important outcome of the NBN for you is “BETTER SPEEDS”. If better download speeds was the primary objective, we wouldn’t need the NBN anyway, we’ve got 4G in many areas with coverage growing rapidly, and as you point out, HFC in some others.

I guess Turnbull’s pricing of FTTP at approx $90B will prove to be quite realistic after all?
$30B now then another $60B to convert & upgrade to fibre in 2021.
Should work well in the already reasonably serviced & competitive metro areas but what about rural communities lacking that choice & competition?
Ongoing subsidies or much steeper charges?
As a retiree on a tight budget I suspect my only present option of a crappy 1Mbp/s ADSL1 service will remain the much cheaper option currently costing us $40/mth for 200GB.

But seriously, you would have to think that Simon Hackett will continue to be his “own man” and tell it like it is. Not just on what should be built and how it should be structured, but on the actual progress and issues that are bound to be encountered in an ongoing rollout.

No doubt Hackett knows a lot about Oz telco scene being an industry insider. But, the fact is unless he disposes of his massive shareholding in iiNet, every time he purports to speak “in the interest of the consumer”, etc, the other NBNco board members will take everything he says with a healthy dose of cynic-laced salt. His massive personal financial conflict of interest renders his credibility ineffectual.

As hard as it is for you to believe, there are people in the world who can still be objective. Even when it’s not in their own self interest. You may not know any of these people. Likely they would avoid you.

This feels like a fob-off to me – Hackett won’t be given the opportunity to share his experience or his advice with the people doing implementation, and his appointment is a PR stunt designed to get Delimiter to back off for a bit. The strategic review will go ahead as planned, and will say exactly what Abbott wants it to say, and any opportunity to build a future-proof network will be squandered.

In Australia, our governments are very good at creating systems that give the appearance of stakeholder contribution without ever actually letting them contribute.

Seriously though, Delimiter FTW. Care to calculate the odds of Hackett being put on the board if not for the actions of Renai LeMay? It was certainly a contributing factor. You’ve made a big, big impact here Renai – and I think the country will be thanking you for a long time.

Jay, you really need to get up to date. The “New” NBN Connection box is about 233×195 and houses the NTD, FWO, excess fibre AND the new “brick” power supply. It is far tidier, and far more elegant.

IF you chooses the old power supply, then the latest firmware supplies power to the Uni-D ports too, not just PSTN as you state.

I have yet to see a manufacturer provide the sort of device you have asserted exists, please show us the links. The self-install won’t work with fibre, and isn’t the industry “norm” world wide, do you think we should buck the international trend and open up NBN to all sorts of litigation?

The RSP provided NTD makes it hard to move provides, which means that many people won’t be bothered (too hard basket) so allowing the RSP’s to get lazy. Also people are reluctant to be without broadband for very long, so a tardy migration by an RSP will cause them a lot of grief. By having the ability to activate a new RSP port prior to cancelling your current plan will keep the RSP’s on “their toes” and provide a far more dynamic experience for us all.

I am totally for freedom of choice and better customer experiences. I think FTTP will provide a significantly better experience than FTTN and the coalition would need a pretty big excuse to go to FTTP where we stand. I also think having a big clunky 4 port NTD WITH pstn lines that no one going forward really wants is a complete waste. I would much rather have a small device that connects directly to the GPON that does wifi and ethernet . Why waste time, money and electricity on a device which isn’t needed.

There’s very few GPON routers out there, and since the NBN Co will be terminating the network connection, they need to be able to trust the end device and it forms part of their fault-finding equipment, so needs to be trusted.

i.e NBN co will need to certify it, so the manufacturer will need to front up those costs. I haven’t heard any of them bragging about that yet, so we can assume that this hasn’t occurred.

Will you guarantee the serviceability of the device and be prepared to pay for a site-visit if they prove your user-supplied equipment is the cause o the fault?

The device uses around 8-10 watts and isn’t “clunky” at all, and considering the abilities it CAN deliver it is pretty good piece of kit. As for PSTN, there’s already plenty of people in Vic Park (Perth) who have PSTN-only services, so I’d hardly say that “no-one” wants it.

I believe the device is absolutely needed to change the way we deal with and deliver broadband in this country, and to forever break to domination that RSP’s have over their customers through their resistance to rapid migration between service providers and the fact that no current broadband (non-NBN) plans allow more than one RSP per line per premises!

I repeat the fact that RSP’s oppose the multi-port NTD because of the threat that it places upon their monopoly per premises – and it appears that you support a lack of choice in this matter.

The backup battery is still a separate unit and is huge and you will still need a router as well so it’s still 3 devices which could be 1 unit. I agree it does look a lot neater than before.

PSTN might be relevant now but over the planned lifespan of the network is a complete waste of money and time especially when carriers could deliver their own VOIP device for people who want voice only services.

I agree the NTD has benefits but I would be entirely comfortable forgoing those benefits and saving a bit of money in the process if it means we actually get FTTP vs being lumped with FTTN. If the gov is to change its mind (which is highly unlikely) it will need to claim it can deliver FTTP cheaper and faster than labor could.

Most people seem to want to avoid the BB, so really it’s a moot point. I could care less about PSTN backup, so won’t be choosing it (if I am allowed to get FTTP).

No, you won’t need a router. A single PC can work on the NBN natively from any Uni-D port. With multiple devices then yes you will, probably in the realm of $50 from Jaycar/Altronics – no difference than if you were FORCED to go with FTTN – as Turnbull will obligate you to BYOD, so it is also a moot point.

With FTTP, your install – up to the NTD – is free of charge, I’d imagine that FTTN will cost several hundreds (lead-in modifications, central splitter, “labour”, etc) to get to the save point.

You seem focussed on the NTD being a waste of money, yet it has been developed, so It.Won’t.Cost.More now. It’s a remarkably flexible unit, and with it’s ability to break the stranglehold that that RSP’s have over the retail delivery, we should do all we can to keep it as it is.

Why do you think Simon advocated it? To allow iiNet and co to continue their dominance – he is well aware of the “danger” it poses to their cosy arrangements!

So, you keep dancing around, but your basic thrust is the “massive amounts of money we could save – Billions?” by allowing the NBN to even be nobbled with an FTTP delivery to protect the RSP’s stranglehold. The savings aren’t there, never have been on the scale that Simon (and you) assert. it’s just FUD, being thrown around by conflicted groups, and being ably supported by some here.

Indeed, but customers want the ability to be able to change in a short time, so they don’t lose the convenience of their broadband connection.

This isn’t just with the internet. The same has happened with mortgages and telephone number portability.

A multi-port NTD facilitates the change between carriers as well as providing other services without the need to install new gear. i.e. 1 truck roll rather than 4 (if you had 4 different services – Foxtel, IPTV, Govt Service, Broadband)

So, are we going to see an article on D exhorting Hackett to dispose of his MASSIVE SHAREHOLDING in iiNet (one of biggest operators locally) in the same way Malcolm was vilified and hounded for his measly France Tel shares (a company operating ‘000s miles away) for the sake of consistency? Somehow, I doubt it. Tony Rabbit will turn gay before we witness such even-handed treatment in tech media.

So now you all turn out to agree with me. So now you’re all applauding the appointment of a guy who is pushing exactly the sort of ideas I have been of doing it simpler and cheaper. I said long ago Hackett and Switkowski would be the dream team to run NBNCo. Switkowski heading the board, and Hackett as CEO. Not that fool stuck in the 20th century and Alcatel-Lucent, Quigley.

The trouble is that, at least so far, Hackett will just be a member of the board. What use are his ideas and his customer focus as just one board member. Hackett isn’t that sort of manager.

The only thing we disagreed with was FTTN and wasting cash, not doing FTTH cheaper. You were all for spending less on a solution that would cost more in the long term. You said long ago Switkowski and Hackett? Really? I have only seen you post long inane political rants.

About 18 months ago when I started reading Delimiter I got the impression that Renai had a serious man crush on Malcolm Turnbull but then after he was called for jumping a shark it seemed that it was all over.

Do we cue shooting stars and fireworks again?

If Malcolm was listening to Renai about getting Simon on board, dare we suggest that he should get Renai on board too? That would be something!

I’m building up to eventually getting myself appointed NBN Co chief executive. The national press conference will be in four weeks. I’ll be standing next to Ziggy and Malcolm wearing a lovely pin-striped suit and a $700 tie. The catering has already been booked.

I suggest you spend some time researching Simon Hackett’s commentary before making baseless assertions. He is respected by many because of the strong customer focus of Internode. He genuinely over a long time provided a premium product, innovated and interacted with the community. Decisions were explained on whirlpool, even failures like flatrate. Simon supports his position with hard facts, not political spin.

> Areas what need affordable internet and fibre to the premesis will still be disadvantaged

I suggest that you look at the rural networks that Agile (Internode’s sister company) built in regional South Australia. I believe that Simon would have pushed further into rural communities, but Telstra’s exorbitant changes for backhaul meant it was not feasible to install DSLAMs in many communities. Many cities had DSLAMs installed as a result of competitive backhaul being built by Labor.

> Its still doesnt change the facts , Hackett isnt going to get turnbull to change much

I cannot think of another person in Australia who would have a better chance of changing Turnbull’s mind. Simon made some comments about the impact of the ACCC’s 121 PoI decision. After being robustly criticised by Conroy, less than 12 months later NBNCo started providing 150Mbps of free CVC at each PoI because RSPs wouldn’t have been viable.

> The comments which favour Hackett are delusional if they think the fttp is saved

The Labor FTTP fanboi club need to appreciate that Labor’s FTTP plan was only concocted to save face after Telstra rebuffed their FTTN plans. I acknowledge it was a good idea, but the directions given to NBNCo by Labor resulted in failure. A robust criticism and suggestions on how to fix the problems is the only hope of saving FTTP.

Alternatively we could just ask Google to build the network. They might actually pay tax in Australia that way ;-)

> I acknowledge it was a good idea, but the directions given to NBNCo by Labor resulted in failure. A robust criticism and suggestions on how to fix the problems is the only hope of saving FTTP.

Excellent. So you no longer support FTTN.

I agree we should have a robust criticism and suggestions on how to fix the problems. We agree that FTTN is not a solution to the problems with FTTP, merely a misguided distraction from the real issues. We have to consider the outcomes: Delivery, future-proofing, retail competition, equity and fairness, value to the consumer, cost to the consumer. (What else do you suggest are the outcomes?) Then we can identify problems with respect to those outcomes. Then we can put forward ideas, and where possible, model those ideas. *hint hint*

> Sorry to say but Hackett is on the nbn co board , more for business profit then for consumers benefit

The biggest cost in NBN plans are the NBNCo wholesale charges – reducing those will benefit consumers. Simon Hackett is one of the few who have provided constructive criticism and proposed solutions.

Competition is tight in the RSP space and Simon leaving the iiNet board will be a definite loss to the company.

> People need to be aware Simon Hackett will not make any difference

Simon’s CV suggests that he has made a difference in Australia for the past 30 years. Negative comments like yours increase the likelihood that FTTN will be the dominate means for providing internet in Australia.

*CHOKE* Most cities have DSLAMs installed because of competitive backhaul built by the PRIVATE SECTOR likes of AAPT, Optus, PIPE, etc. NOT LABOR. Go ask the DBCDE of all the regional backhaul built as part of the expensive blackspots programme under Conroy, how much of it is currently being utilised by the so-called competitors. (Surprise, surprise, the whinging cherry-pickers cherry-picked those regional backhaul markets too.) More taxpayer money wasted.

The true reality is that under Labor’s FTTP plan the faster speeds would have been paid for by those who were prepared to pay for them. 100Mbps plans start from $50 a month and would support high-quality VoIP, while ADSL + home phone bundles for similar quota starts from around $40 (e.g. TPG standard bundle). Those who need more data (and of course you would), reasonably large quotas start from around $80-90 under the NBN, while a similar quota under ADSL starts from around $70. The difference in price is small, and the difference in value is large.

The limiting factor is not what people can afford, it is what people are willing to pay for. If I had the NBN, I’d definitely pay for a 100Mbps connection with generous quota, and I am by no means wealthy. In fact, I’d say I’m from the poorer end of town. It would help that I wouldn’t need to pay $35 a month for a landline.

I hate to say this to people but Simon Hackett will not be able to stop the government signing the tpp

After the coalition went to the election promising no censorship

Comments are closed.

Book now available

Written by Delimiter Publisher Renai LeMay, The Frustrated State is the first in-depth book examining of how Australia’s political sector is systematically mismanaging technological change and crushing hopes that our nation will ever take its rightful place globally as a digital powerhouse and home of innovation.

Welcome! We were an energetic and engaged community of Australians who worked with or who were interested in technology -- all sorts of IT professionals, IT managers, CIOs, tech policy-makers and tech enthusiasts.